About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
CNN 1
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
that next paycheck may be smaller is not going over well among the troops. our pentagon correspondent barbara starr has the details. she's working the story. barbara, what's going on? >> wolf, in this town, there's nothing that causes more anxiety in budget politics than the concept of cutting the pay for the troops. but that is exactly what is on the table if congress and the president cannot reach an agreement on a spending plan. the troops usually are happy to see defense secretary leon panetta, smiles and handshakes all around. but days before he leaves office, panetta has bad news. he's proposing less money in their paycheck next year. panetta, a savvy washington operative in budget politics, is leaving it to congress to figure out how not to cut pay and keep thousands of defense employees on the job. >> we will furlough as many as 800,000 d.o.d. civilians around the country for up to 22 days. they could face a 20% cut in their salary. you don't think that's going to impact on our economy? >> but the recommendation to slow the military pay raise will put troops in the middle of t
saying their budgets are going to be cut. then the pentagon came out the next day and said we're going to have to lay off 800,000 civilian workers or furlough them one day a week. yesterday you had lahood, the transportation secretary come to the white house briefing room and say we're going to have delays in air traffic, shut down air traffic control. this tactic is because the white house recognizes they're trying to sway public opinion and put pressure from the outside on republicans. it's interesting. a poll came out just this week that said the vast majority of americans don't know a lot about these cuts that are coming down. the white house is trying to change that. the white house is still working, hoping for a deal. but i get a sense that most of washington and probably even at the white house they recognize we could go past the sequester at least for a few weeks, and there's going to be another chance late in march where the continuing spending resolution comes up or expires and they're going to have to negotiate deal on that. and it all could just be wrapped up into one. >> d
'hanlon, senior fellow of foreign policy studies at the brookings institution. essentially the pentagon counted attacks taken place against, you know, anti-taliban forces and found them down about 7% but then somebody said, oh, wait a minute. we forgot to count attacks on afghan-led units. seems a little surprising. >> it is clearly a mistake they should not have made. on the other hand i'm sure it wasn't intentional. by the way the number of attacks against afghan units were a lot more than 7% of the total. the good news in 2012 the war hasn't gone away, the fighting hasn't gone away, the war has not ended if our role is declining. afghan security forces are doing more and more fighting. the number of attacks against them the fatalities they suffered three times or four times as many as coalition fatalities. it may even be more or five. the as we pulled out our troops during the fighting season the a evident loo the violence didn't get worse. the afghan security forces did more and more of the fighting. i'm not saying this is good news. in the context of an overall transition to a afghan-led e
wanted to cut the pentagon budget since talking the whew house 4 1/2 years ago. >> he was wanted to cut the pentagon since he was a state senator in illinois. he is getting his way. the left is very happy from sequestration. there are reports saying hey, we're finally cutting the defense department. as iran advances towards nuclear weapons, north korea running tests on nuclear weapons may or may not be for iran you don't want to signal to iran, hey, we're not sending aircraft carriers to the persian gulf because i negotiated something i don't like. this is very poor leadership skill. bill: what speaker bain are said to cbs and scott pelley last night he believes the white house is playing games. we'll get into that with rand paul in about 30 minutes. stuart varney was talking about "the wall street journal" report this morning saying that, even with the cuts, across the board the way they are stacked against the defense department the president still has authority as commander-in-chief to administer these cuts. is that true? >> it is. you know, everyone keeps talking about sequestration
're going to cut pretty significantly from the pentagon's budget. your move, mr. president. >> he wants revenues to go up again and john boehner's response is, we just did that. >> that's the thing. we always heard, you guys raise taxes, cut defense spending and then we will come back with a compromise on spending cuts. but, no, we raise taxes, we come forward with pentagon cuts and the president comes back with, we want to tax more americans. let's raise taxes again. >> you wonder where this ends now then, right, because if the president's not going to go anywhere without more revenue, where does this take us? we have the plan in place that was supposed to do both of those things. we're at that point on friday and we will hit it and neither side is going to get to it. what's the end game here. >> how do you think this is goin going? >> it's going terribly. >> republicans always lose these budget battles. i get a sense for the first time the president is overplaying his hand. talking about fear and loathing, locusts ascending from the heavens, now talking about more tax cuts, your dog w
, those cuts would take 13% out of the pentagon's budget. 9% away from nondefense programs, and 11% out of unemployment insurance checks, senior administration officials are telling us that when those cuts begin causing pain across america, they believe republicans will cave under pressure from their constituents and agree to the increased revenue the president wants. just yesterday the president made his argument at a nuclear attack submarine plant in newport news, virginia. >> there are too many republicans in congress right now who refuse to compromise even an inch when it comes to closing tax loopholes and special interest tax breaks. that's what's holding things up right now. >> but republicans disagree and speaker of the house, john boehner, used some very colorful language to describe how unhelpful he thinks president obama's trip away from washington was so close to the deadline for sequestration. >> for 16 months the president has been traveling all over the country holding rallies instead of sitting down with senate leaders in order to try to forge an agreement over there in o
military activity is that nobody in the pentagon would have ordered military act ship without a specific order from the president. and the president wasn't around. rick: i want do ask you both, we have about a minute and a half left. another story came out of these hearings. that is the president himself, rick, himself opposed a plan that was supported by pretty much everybody else in his administration, to try to arm the rebels in syria. what do you make of that? >> you know i think it's remarkable that his team was really recommending that we needed to do something to support what was happening there and identify the opposition, the right opposition and then try to give them some sort of military support. and the president said no. i think this goes back to exactly who he is and what he believes the inate, positive, good of people. i think he doesn't understand, the president doesn't understand, this is a dangerous world and that we need to take sides to make sure that the right people are the ones who take hold in syria. it is the same thing that happened in egypt. really the same thi
the pentagon. like don't cut a single thing, but i'm going to go out, i'm going to keep talking about rich americans. i'm going to keep talking about corporations. i'm going to play to my base instead of talking -- telling middle-class americans they're going to have to make some sacrifices. along with the rich. it's that mika, it's a permanent campaign. and i guess if this is how he wants to run things, he's president of the united states, good luck over the next 3 1/2 years. >> i don't understand why loopholes are even an argument, first of all, why he has to go this far. why he has to keep talking about it. >> hold on a second. >> i know. >> we all agree that these loopholes need to be closed. >> well, let's do it. why is it so hard? >> i've been talking about supporting warren buffett's idea. >> why are we still talking about it? >> because the president only uses it to demagogue in a permanent campaign. he never talks about the other side of it. he always says oh, it's the rich. >> that would be loopholes. >> don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the rich guy behind the tree. >> steny hoye
highlighted recently after the pentagon looked at ban on women serving in combat. while there's a lot of talk about the future of women in the military, we haven't spent a lot of time what the reality is for them now. that is the subject of a new book by an author known for her book turned tv series, "army wives". you might know that. her new book, umdaunted. the real story of american kfs women in the military. on bookstores today. congratulations. a big accomplishment. >> thank you very much. jenna: we don't spend a lot of time what is actually going on right now. you followed some women over a five, six-year period. tell us a little bit about the reality that they face. >> well, with this book i wanted to see what does it take to really be a successful servicewoman, what does it take? so i found these four extraordinary women who are all trailblazers. but the thing about the military is, professional success often comes at a personal price for both men and women but women face their own set of unique challenges that they often deal with out of public view. i wanted to examine that. jenna:
.2 trillion in cuts, half of it in the pentagon. across-the-board cuts, right? indiscriminate cuts. >> absolutely. >> bill: if it had been $10 trillion, half in the pentagon and half in the programs, the tea parties would have still said bring it on. right? that's their attitude. >> it is entirely possible. this is a group like many throughout the history of congress campaigned against government. ran against the congress. but unlike most in history never found that they had to make the transformation into governing. at some point, you have to be for something. you have to govern. even if you're for decreasing the size of government, you have to find a responsible way to do it. this is not responsible in any way. it cuts the good with the bad the efficient with the inefficient. it is going to cost us more money. when we breach the contracts in defense. so it is not the least bit rational. those that are saying that well, this is not a big deal, it is a small amount. it is a big amount and when you compound the fact that it's taking place now not over full year but over much less th
be appropriate. >>steve: the pentagon is really -- you know, you detail very astutely in your piece, they have fallen down in helping these guys transition to a new job. when this guy left, somebody said you might be able to get a job driving a truck, a beer truck in milwaukee. that's the kind of work you should think of. financially, his family would be better off money-wise if he would have been killed in service. >> that actually came from another seal team six member i spoke with who is still in seal team six who is about to go in deployment. he said because the navy is very generous about -- the military is very generous about life insurance. he said figure over on -- he said if i go over on my next deployment and get killed i know my kids will go to school and my wife will be taken care of. but if i come back and leave before my 20, i'll have nothing. >>brian: there's a few things that come out. one, the guy came back, a lot of people in the white house are going to be writing books. one guy writes a book and he's making a lot of money but he's not about to keep it because he's being sue
to oppose his nominees for top cabinet slots at the pentagon and cia. republican senator lindsey graham threatened to hold up those picks until the white house delivers more information about the attacks in benghazi. >> i don't think we should allow brennan to go forward for the cia directorship, hagel to be confirmed as secretary of defense until the white house gives us an accounting, did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the libyan government to help these folks? what did the president do? yes, i'm going to ask my colleagues just like they did with john bolton, joe biden said, no confirmation without information. no confirmation without information. >> you are saying that you are going to block the nominations -- you're going to block them from coming to a vote until you get an answer? >> yes. >> now, john mccain has already think that he doesn't think republicans ought to filibuster this. what will you do? you're just going to put a hold on it? >> yeah, i'm not filibustering. this is a national security failure of monumental proportions, and i'm not going to st
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)